UMAR vs. EAPR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

UMAR (Innovator U.S. Equity Ultra Buffer ETF - March) and EAPR (Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April) are both Defined Outcome funds from Innovator - UMAR tracks the S&P 500 Index while EAPR tracks the MSCI Emerging Markets. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, UMAR returned 7.83%/yr vs 5.15%/yr for EAPR. A 0.55 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. UMAR charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.89%/yr for EAPR.

Performance

UMAR vs. EAPR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Innovator U.S. Equity Ultra Buffer ETF - March (UMAR) and Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April (EAPR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, UMAR achieves a 5.78% return, which is significantly lower than EAPR's 11.39% return.

UMAR

• 1D: 0.18%
• 1M: 1.97%
• YTD: 5.78%
• 6M: 6.56%
• 1Y: 14.67%
• 3Y*: 12.79%
• 5Y*: 7.83%
• 10Y*: —

EAPR

• 1D: -0.45%
• 1M: 2.01%
• YTD: 11.39%
• 6M: 12.25%
• 1Y: 22.07%
• 3Y*: 10.62%
• 5Y*: 5.15%
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

UMAR vs. EAPR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
UMAR Innovator U.S. Equity Ultra Buffer ETF - March	5.78%	11.94%	12.94%	12.22%	-5.49%	4.26%
EAPR Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April	11.39%	14.80%	2.86%	8.19%	-5.01%	-2.80%

Correlation

The correlation between UMAR and EAPR is 0.57, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.57
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.55
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.56
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 5, 2021	0.55

The correlation between UMAR and EAPR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.55 to 0.57 - a consistent structural relationship.

UMAR vs. EAPR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	UMAR	EAPR
Technology	33.6%	36.9%
Financial Services	12.2%	19.5%
Communication Services	10.5%	6.9%
Consumer Cyclical	10.0%	9.5%
Healthcare	9.5%	2.9%
Industrials	8.5%	7.5%
Consumer Defensive	5.3%	3.0%
Energy	4.0%	4.1%
Utilities	2.6%	2.1%
Real Estate	2.0%	1.1%
Basic Materials	1.9%	6.5%

Return for Risk

UMAR vs. EAPR — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

UMAR

UMAR Risk / Return Rank: 89
UMAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
UMAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
UMAR Omega Ratio Rank: 93
UMAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
UMAR Martin Ratio Rank: 92

EAPR

EAPR Risk / Return Rank: 94
EAPR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
EAPR Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
EAPR Omega Ratio Rank: 96
EAPR Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
EAPR Martin Ratio Rank: 97

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

UMAR vs. EAPR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Innovator U.S. Equity Ultra Buffer ETF - March (UMAR) and Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April (EAPR). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

	UMAR	EAPR	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.99	3.06	-0.08
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	4.39	5.25	-0.86
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.65	1.84	-0.20
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.08	7.33	-3.25
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	22.77	42.15	-19.38
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

UMAR vs. EAPR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UMAR Sharpe Ratio is 2.99, which is comparable to the EAPR Sharpe Ratio of 3.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UMAR and EAPR, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	UMAR	EAPR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.99	3.06	-0.08
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.20	0.51	+0.69
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.04	0.54	+0.50

Drawdowns

UMAR vs. EAPR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UMAR drawdown since its inception was -11.08%, smaller than the maximum EAPR drawdown of -17.65%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UMAR and EAPR.

Drawdown Indicators

	UMAR	EAPR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.08%	-17.65%	+6.57%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.61%	-3.02%	-0.59%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-7.41%	-10.24%	+2.83%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-8.72%	-17.65%	+8.93%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.45%	+0.45%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.63%	-4.06%	+2.43%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.65%	0.52%	+0.13%

Volatility

UMAR vs. EAPR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Innovator U.S. Equity Ultra Buffer ETF - March (UMAR) is 0.82%, while Innovator Emerging Markets Power Buffer ETF - April (EAPR) has a volatility of 3.79%. This indicates that UMAR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EAPR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	UMAR	EAPR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.82%	3.79%	-2.97%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.78%	6.28%	-2.50%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.94%	7.24%	-2.30%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.54%	10.09%	-3.55%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.52%	10.02%	-2.50%

UMAR vs. EAPR - Expense Ratio Comparison

UMAR has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than EAPR's 0.89% expense ratio.

Dividends

UMAR vs. EAPR - Dividend Comparison

Neither UMAR nor EAPR has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both UMAR and EAPR in my portfolio?

UMAR and EAPR have a correlation of 0.57, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, UMAR or EAPR?

EAPR has higher volatility (3.79%) compared to UMAR (0.82%). In terms of maximum drawdown, UMAR dropped -11.08% vs EAPR's -17.65%.

Which ETF is better, UMAR or EAPR?

On 5-year performance, UMAR leads with 7.83% vs 5.15% for EAPR. On fees, UMAR is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, UMAR has been the lower-risk option at 0.82%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, UMAR or EAPR?

Over the 5-year period, UMAR has performed better with a 7.83% return vs 5.15%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, UMAR or EAPR?

UMAR is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.89% for EAPR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, UMAR or EAPR?

UMAR and EAPR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between UMAR and EAPR?

UMAR tracks S&P 500 Index, while EAPR tracks MSCI Emerging Markets. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for UMAR and 0.89% for EAPR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EAPR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.06 vs 2.99), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.